Reading the comments in posts over at the BAD GARAGE SLAB thread, and having worked setting trusses for a garage today, it got me thinking about efficiency.
Design a two car garage. Nothing fancy. Simple trussed roof. Modest roof overhangs. Don’t go overboard on height . . . not everyone drives a 4×4 like you, and 7′ h. doors cost less than others.
The challenge is to use full sheets of ply or OSB, have minimal cutting, and minimal cut-off scraps that cannot be used.
Tell us the numbers, and why. L x W x H, pitch, overhangs, numbers of trusses, etc.
Replies
This is not really an answer to your question, but.... the first good framer I worked under, we were building a custom house for an architect. We framed walls and stood them without sheeting them. We started sheeting at corner #1, and when we got to the end of that wall, the cutoff piece of plywood went right around the corner and started the next wall. He laid out the framing that way, and it worked quite well. No plywood scraps until we got all the way around.
aside from the odd time when it can be more practical. I never have understood the practice of not sheathing the wall while on the deck.
climbing ladders with plywood ..what a waste of time.
Joe Carola has described a couple of good ways for sheathing after standing walls. No ladders involved. One *really* good method depending on your locale is to hire a sheathing crew.
yeah I know Joe does it that way, and in fact a lot of good framers do it that way.
more than one way to skin a cat I guess. just makes no sense to me, especially when you get to the second floor. not a topic I want to debate though. I'll stick to squaring and sheathing the wall while on deck, just as the other guys will stick to their way. more important things to worry about - like square, level, plumb and straight.
It's been longer than I want to remember since I did any framing, but I remember lapping the sheathing over the band board...may not be the fastest way to fly, but it sure makes a strong box....
you can lap the box by hanging your ply off the bottom plate.
I started for this builder I work for a few years back and could never get him to change his way of plywood after walls aer stood.
When I came back to him recently part of my "deal" is I build houses my way, or plywood on the deck.Friends help you move.
Real friends help you move bodies!
I think that is the only way it should be done. JMHO.
^
SamT
Now if I could just remember that I am a businessman with a hammer and not a craftsman with a business....."anonymous". . .segundo
Stick to Even numbers, multple of 2' or 4' for walls.
Keep Gable overhangs at 24" or a hair under.
Pitch will determine roof sheathing but a fudge shorter or longer on tails can get you close to 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, full width of ply. Run the numbers through the CM and see what you get for diag with tails incl. Slightly under so you got some fudge room.
Doing so you could in theory, cut your ply downstair and haul up only several cut pieces to fill in, snap and cut what may happen to be a bit long.
Nothings cooler than an itty bitty pile of scrap. Isn't efficiency green building too?
Judo Chop!
I once had a customer come up with an interesting idea.
His house was 30 something feet wide, and he knew how much overhang he wanted. The roof was a straight gable - No hips, valleys, or anything.
He wanted me to calc the picth so the slope length was exactly 20' so he wouldn't have to cut any of his plywood along the ridge.
Things you say are called "opinions"
I used to be a big proponent of materials optimization (or "overall value engineering", if you prefer), but I have backed off a bit. The aim to hold to a grid to work with standard materials can only be taken so far before it starts to fall apart.
Take a wall, for example: If you hold the length for full sheathing on the outside, you are cutting drywall on the inside.
I like your customer's thinking on "adjust pitch as necessary", but I guess I am now leary of fighting that battle at every turn. I think it needs to be considered, but can't be the final arbiter in all decisions.
That, or, I tried it and am just to dumb to make it work as it should . . . <shrugs shoulders>
http://jhausch.blogspot.comAdventures in Home BuildingAn online journal covering the preparation and construction of our new home.
I don't think the plywood/slope thing would work on many jobs. Only ones with long, straight runs of roof. Those are definitely not the norm.Still, it's an interesting idea. Something to keep in the back of your mind for that one time when you could pull it out of your hat.
Thirty is the perfect age - You can date college girls and their mothers.
"Something to keep in the back of your mind for that one time when you could pull it out of your hat."
<Picturing Boss grabbing the brim of his M-F cap and telling the customer, "excuse me while I whip this out. . . . ">
As an aside, my house design deliberately had no hips or valleys and simple trusses. The look is not "simple", but if you look closely, you can see that the truss shape is held "Front to back" for the master suite area and main part of the house. The garage "room in attic" trusses run perpendicular, don't intersect the other roof line, and are still the same. Even the little bumpouts are simple.
http://jhausch.blogspot.comAdventures in Home BuildingAn online journal covering the preparation and construction of our new home.
Not to mention that the cost of framing as a percentage of the whole is relatively small, and scrap even a smaller percentage of that percent. So what are we really talking about in terms of dollars? Is $100, or $500, or even $1000 in scrap even on the radar when you consider architurial style, or a centered window verse an unsightly placement, etc.? There are likely not very many reaosns to build a house 39' 6" long when you could build it 40'. So there are some obvious and logical things you can do.
Don't get me wrong, I am tighter with the wallet than 99% of everyone I know, and saving a buck is high on my list of priorities. But then again there are other factors.
To get the most square feet of space with the least amount of material a Square Building is the most efficient design. A rectangular building with the same footage will take more studs and more sheathing.
So square and dimensions that are multiples of 2 will use the least the best. IMO.
Some modular designs make sense. There is nothing more annoying than a 16'-3" deck. But I don't think many people would want their only boast about their house's appearance to be that it saved materials.
I agree, nothing heartwarming about a Plain-Jane cubical.<!----><!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
OP posed a question of design efficiency. <!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
You can get the most for less with squares.<!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
Compare a 20/20 square with a 10/40 rectangle. Same footage, more wall.<!----><!---->
Mr J, a cube is even better! Less foundantion, less roof, and more efficient to heat!
So build one 24 feet square and three stories (24 feet)!
Called a "Four Square" ,classic American style .
Yes. Cooking Hearth in the basement or first floor, Chimney flue in the center of house, inside corner of the rooms, with wood stoves in every bedroom vented into the center flue. There used to be many Civil War era homes in this area like that. Only a few are still surviving though.
Bit of a high jack here, but along the lines of material efficiency.
I know this is Fine Homebuilding and all but has anyone (if anyone here uses them )here ordered vinyl windows to fit between studs and trimmers that are laid out on 24" or 16" centers.
For example instead of a 48 " (47 1/2" actual frame) wide window order a 43" (actual frame) wide unit. I have thought about this but never done it. Sure seems it would save some time and money.
"has anyone here ordered vinyl windows to fit between studs and trimmers that are laid out on 24" or 16" centers."
Only did it once, and that was on a playhouse. Used a really narrow replacement window from a mobile home.
I see 2 basic problems with the idea.
First - Windows that narrow won't work in a typical house.
Second - There are generally specific places that the window needs to go. You can't always make your stud spacing work with the window layout.
I don't think so, Tim [Al Borland on "Home Improvement"]
You must be using those infinitely small floor joists.<G>
http://jhausch.blogspot.comAdventures in Home BuildingAn online journal covering the preparation and construction of our new home.
Actually, the most efficient design would be a sphere. Tough to build, tougher to live in. But it wouldn't be a cookie cutter house.
Tough to build, tougher to live in.
You better be careful who you say that around...
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Yep.
Bucky Fuller would be applauding !!!
The challenge is to use full sheets of ply or OSB, have minimal cutting, and minimal cut-off scraps that cannot be used
Ooh, that's a good one!
It's an "intersection," too. If we presume only exterior sheathing & roof decking (adding in interior drywall adding two more axes to this); then there's a "happy" value for the width of the walls; and another for the width of the roof, and yet another for the roof run, which then has another "happy" spot for the soffits to the overhangs.
The garage door width gets in there, too; much better to have a divisible by 4 width for the sheathing--not so much for parking the cars.
Best way I've found is to knock together a spread sheet with the variables. Stick a cell in there with the overall dimension/4, and another with OAD/8--do that for all of your dimension totals too.
Having tried to do this for clients before, it's more than some frustrating (if one's mandate is to only use whole sheets of T-111 as the exterior, all sorts of things "look" catterwhumpus; even better is that ceiling height that finishes about 7'-5" . . . ) If an archy ever needs to reinforce what 80% of all framers think badly about archy's; just put that 6.578/12 pitch on the elevations "But, it's a whole sheet" just does not fly as far as it might/ought . . .
OK here goes... (I don't like it, but its efficient)
24x24 - 8' ceilings (over 2 courses of block)
2' o.c. framing, each stud falls under a truss, 1 top plate if you prefer.
1' overhangs
(13) 5/12 trusses - rake length is 13'-11-5/32", so 3-1/2 sheets of sheathing
7x16 door - You'll need an LVL, but they are fast, and you aren't doing 2 headers
No man door (3-0 is too inefficient a width for us)
3' 7-1/2" Wide windows of you really need them. (fits between existing studs nicely w/jacks)
My cars would barely fit in this thing, and the racks on the truck would catch.
If you went with a metal roof, supplier cut material to length, so you could do whatever you want with the roof pitch, skipping the plywood...
And a shed roof could be even more efficient, but come-on - thats ugly!
Thoughts?
i like it brian, excellent work!
however i think i would opt for the man door,
an 8' garage door, i think it would work with the two rows of block, so you could get the truck in with ladder racks, which means it fits as long as the lvl isnt wider dimension than two rows of block, 14 1/2" ?
i would make it 24' wide by 28' long, i know the out of square is less efficient, but the length makes it much more practical for me,
i would still use the regular windows, not the special order. if you could fit in the 3' wide it wouldnt be but two extra studs and jacks (trimmers if you are from the left coast) per window. i think the labor and extra material required would be less than special order windows for a garage but just a guess, i could be wrong
I got two tries to build my own garage - this (2nd) house it is 32' square, 10/12 attic trusses and 4 courses of block for a ~12' ceiling. The door is 18x9, and the upstairs will soon be a small apartment.
Having a tenant pays for the inefficiencies over time, and they'll feed the dogs when I'm away.
But...I'm thinking with a small crew we could really crank out the smaller efficient garages marketing them as a preset package deal. Once we get the system down, we could fly... Pole barn construction may be even faster.
Treat every person you meet like you will know them the rest of your life - you just might!
as a business, if you could sell them, panelized construction techniques, yes you could really fly,
maybe instead of pole barn you could use anchor panels, with frame panels (SIP's or frame & ply). the anchor panels might be faster than either block or pole, or maybe as a combination with a modified/short pole to set the frame panels on, then install anchor panels to bottom of frame panels, throw in a coupla rebars, splash and dash!
anchor panels if you've never heard of them were developed by a guy named Butler in Oregon?, and they are kind of like mini sheet piles, or a corrugated roofing panel on steroids. their intended use was as a superior foundation system for mobile/modular homes
all you need is a boom truck and concrete pump on a trailer....
Your're search for the construction of a perfect frame will lead to fustration of finishing it.
Try laying out the building so that you use the exact amount of roof shingles across without any waste. No slivers at one side.
As long as the roof is simple and not too steep to walk on, its efficient in my book!
Roof jacks slow everything down.
Cutting a shingle each course is a small "inconvenience", and with architectural shingles there is very little wasted.
Plus if we make things too easy, we'll lose all our customers...
Treat every person you meet like you will know them the rest of your life - you just might!